On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Steve Onnis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why don’t you use typeof(console.info) to make sure it is what you are > expecting > > > BOFH would say: today's excuse: paranoia. Anyway, this was behaviour that completely surprised me. And given that it's this odd (to me), I wanted to make absolutely sure, no matter what crazy twist they (MS) might add to it in whatever future, that I got access to apply() when I need/expect it. AFAICT the observed behaviour doesn't fit the bill of being 'spec complaint', so checks which are assuming some degree of spec adherence (and thus would be 'indirect' checks) are out. Hence a direct check for .apply availability instead of a indirect typeof==='function' check. Compare to the old skool browser sniff (if it's UA X then we got B) indirect checks versus direct (does this bugger have method B?) checks regarding DOM access functions. -- Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards, Ger Hobbelt -------------------------------------------------- web: http://www.hobbelt.com/ http://www.hebbut.net/ mail: [email protected] mobile: +31-6-11 120 978 --------------------------------------------------
